It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

page: 34
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:46 AM

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

Did you see me mention evolution?

When your very first line is "nothing gives birth to a new species" it's pretty clear what you're referencing and to say otherwise makes you a liar reliant on strawmen.

What I did state about the Chicken and the Egg is entirely accurate...

Then you should have no problem supporting that with a peer reviewed citation then.

So you should stop smoking your straw man...
If you were even close to as smart as you think you are you would realize that for yourself...

Ahh... back to the old "I can't actually engage in a civil dialogue about science I know nothing about so I'll make it a personal attack and deflect from the rawness of my own willful ignorance" routine. Gotcha.

As for evolution...
Im am not brainwashed like you...

Is that a fancy way of saying you aren't capable of discussing the science, let alone being civil? Really, there's no need to make it personal. If you don't know enough to discuss the topic, it doesn't make you less intelligent. It just means you choose not to learn.

Im sure as hell not stupid enough to regurgitate the latest drivel proposed by so called evolutionary experts who change their opinions more than you change your underwear...

No Evolution is not what you think it is...

Sure it is. Because unlike you I'm not regurgitating other people's words. I base my opinions on my own research. But it doesn't matter because if you can't write coherently then there's no way you could grasp anything I try to explain to you.

The only part you have right is mutations...
But these mutations do not take a long time as suggested...

Phew... thank the dark lord of the abyss! Some teenager in Canada who pretends to be a well off construction worker thinks I've got Part of it correct! I can sleep soundly now.

Instead I believe they happen rapidly when genetics are altered by elements in an enviroment which have the ability to cause such gentic alterations...

It would appear that we're both fans of Dr. Gould. Who would've thought...

I will use radiation as an example...
Those who grossly misrepresent science are the blind followers of evolution who buy the latest lie every time...
And believe themselves most intelligent quoting the latest tidbit verbatim...

Get real...

Hey, whatever bull s# makes you happy, run with it. There's a difference between believing yourself superior and knowing your limitations though. Want to take a guess where you fall in that?

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: peter vlar

Oh my people still argue with evolution regularly here don't they?

Can mutations happen fast yes, usually with some kind of manipulation or major outside force.

Can they happen slow, not only can they, they do.

How else would animals and plants adapt to the earth as it has chagen over billions of years? Or the universe as it changes through time and space?

Is it all magic? Is it possible certain animals or plants were genetically altered to create a species useful to the engineer? Sure. We do it. We would find evidence of this eventually if I true bit it doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. It just means another being can manipulate nature (through "science")

It's really amazing how people use Information.
For instance if evolution doesn't exist how did we come up wit genetic engineering at all? Pretty sure mutation was observed even pre mendel and it was used to make the connecrion of selective breeding. But hey maybe I am wrong.

I think the flat earthers and anti evolutionists should team up and form a group of higher ignorance.
edit on 17-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: peter vlar

I have always wondered this and not found any good sources but do you have any for any qm or particle physics studies on evolution. I always wondered if the exchange of electrons has any factor in evolution.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 07:17 PM
a reply to: edmc^2

"If the question would have been "if there is no cause there can be a beginning?" the answer would have been obviously NO.

I agree with the answer. Hence that which has no beginning then must be the beginning of all "things" created. "

Thank you for your nice answer and I'm glad we agree on that point.
I would like only to make a little correction which in my opinion is important.

You say 'that which has no beginning then must be the beginning of all "things" created." I would rather say that is a necessary condition, or a vital contributor for all the things created. "At" the beginning rather then "the beginning".

To illustrate better what I mean I will use again the example of space.
While all things begin and end in some space they are not created by space per se. If there would be only space and no other additional causes nothing would ever happen. The real beginning of any thing would be its direct cause, happening within this space, allowed to happen but not directly caused to happen.
So I think that a better formulation would be "that which has no beginning must include/allow/support the beginning of all things created." It makes sense to you?

I also prefer to use the word "caused" rather than "created". Creation somehow imply an intention to me, and automatically makes me think of a consciousness, a personality, which is not necessary in the question you formulated in your OP. Cause is more neutral, more factual in a logical investigation.
I would love to know why so many people prefer to search for a creator instead of a cause, but I don't want to drift your thread. Maybe someone will make a thread about this some day...

edit on 17-7-2017 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 07:36 PM
a reply to: luthier

I would agree that if not the mutations or genetics themselves were realized, at the very least how genes expressed in descendants had to have been noted going back at least to the demostication of dogs. And it's a given that domestication of plants and then goats sheep, cattle and on and on... were all well known millennia before Mendel put pen to paper.

As to your next query regarding QM and a potential relationship with MES et al. I'm not aware of any off hand but it is something f I am genuinely curious about myself. I've got a couple of days off so I'm going to do a little checking around on my own and send out a couple of emails to people more knowledgeable than myself and see if I can at least get some ideas of where to look or perhaps a journal to peruse. If I find something I'll definitely let you know and pass the info along so that you can look at the data etc. for yourself. Hope all is well with you. Give me a day or so and I'll see what I can dig up.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 07:37 PM
a reply to: edmc^2
The question is a paradox, where both answers yes and no have a clear cut answer, and that would fall into both the science and the philosophical and theological realms. However, the answer to the question If something has no cause, does it have a beginning? The answer is yes and no that everything has a beginning.

What the op is asking falls more into quantum physics, and only a few people, more specifically those who study such, would be able to answer such in a more detailed answer.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:34 PM
I think this question requires us to make a couple of assumptions. First that we understand the outcome well enough to accurately describe its cause. Second, that we even know the starting parameters, or the “beginning,” well enough to conclusively determine the outcome.

Because someone sneezes and then gets sick and dies, you might assume the sneeze was the start of the sickness.
But correlation does not prove causation: What if the sickness is cancer? The sneeze may very well have been allergies. Lack of sufficiently detailed information makes us draw conclusions in a way that may be erroneous and therefore we misidentify the cause.

Conversely, if someone gets mesothelioma but the person had no known risk factors for the disease, such as asbestos exposure, then should we assume that the diagnosis had no beginning and was absolutely spontaneous? Or should we assume we simply don’t know the starting parameters well enough to find the beginning of the disease without looking at other information?

So, if I hear of “a beginning,” or possibly “the beginning” and that there is an outcome that “has no cause,” (i.e. it all happened in a random meaningless “poof”! versus a good book which describes divine intervention) and potentially hear that the second option is the most plausible because the science leaves us devoid of the true cause, then I’d just caution that our starting point of scientific understanding is essentially always “no known cause;” but that this state has quite often proven to be transitory due to incompletely known starting parameters and insufficiently detailed information regarding the outcome.

FYI - I use medicine as an example since just a few hundred years ago, it was almost exclusively known that it was the devil's work which caused any number of diseases, but thankfully due to germ theory we have some different causes to turn to these days.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:01 PM

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.

Sorry to disappoint. I know the answer. God came first. He created all things. As for the chicken and egg, God created the egg, then hatched the egg in a vat, and thus made the first chicken.

We know this because, this is the order of creation written in the scriptures,

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. -- KJV, Isaiah 43:7


That means the DNA sequence, i.e. the "name" or "word" for "Chicken" came first, then the Chicken is "created" from this "word" or "name" encoded in the DNA message..etc..until the Chicken becomes manifest in the flesh..which is the "LAST STEP" in the creation process.

Hence...egg comes before the chicken.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: AMPTAH
Then why were there eggs 100's of millions of years before even archaic Porto birds, let alone chickens? You make it sound as if everything were created simultaneously but from studying geology, we know this isn't the case. Genetics further supports this.

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:28 PM

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I have always wondered this and not found any good sources but do you have any for any qm or particle physics studies on evolution. I always wondered if the exchange of electrons has any factor in evolution.

Now that's a very interesting question. Logically, there should be a relationship between the two. After all, the quantum world is about measurement, specifically probability distribution. Evolution is also about measurement, but the metrics are different - we use the metrics of classical mechanics. I found the following article which takes a look at the topic.
I like your question - the answer is not intuitive nor is it easy. But it is intriguing.

"I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem." The American physicist Richard Feynman said this about the notorious puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics, the theory physicists use to describe the tiniest objects in the Universe. But he might as well have been talking about the equally knotty problem of consciousness.
Richard Feynman

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:44 PM
a reply to: peter vlar

I wonder what defect would make you believe I am lying about being a contractor?

If Dr Gould said something similar to myself that's all fine and dandy but to assume I am a fan of his or copying him or anyone else through my statements is just as wrong as your belief I would lie about being a Contractor...

I guess that really means you are jealous of my financial well being... I'm sorry to hear you are struggling I sort of know the feeling after having to deal with over 6 months of a serious decline in New starts thanks to the economy...But it has rebounded and very busy again...

Do you need a loan?

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 08:12 AM
a reply to: Phantom423

Awesome man thank you. Not much in the quantum world is intuitive. I heard stories of serious disturbed minds after the electron microscope confirmed matter was mostly empty space. Like it effected some early physicists so much they nearly lost their mind.

I have a feeling that evolution is a force not unlike gravity. We have studied a small biological element but there is probably more going on. Even being effected by entanglement and superposition. Or is it emersive(like gravity?)

I am kindoing of a panthiest, spinozist so I could also being projecting my internal personal belief system but I have studied the philosophical side of cosmology. I hope my belief system is also evolving.
edit on 18-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 08:19 AM
a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks for your thoughtful response as usual. I think you more articulately explained what I was getting at. In my understanding of genetics even selective breeding is basically a study of evolution. We may be able to manipulate the process but again I will look at it like a force, like gravity. We can also manipulate gravity several ways. Not a great side by side analogy since geetics are so complex but I sincerely look at evolution as a part of the universe forces on life and probably all of matter in through the quantum exchanges.

Like a structural code, you can tap into and recode but it's subject to the constant force of evolution/mutation/adaptation.

And for the believers in god. Again evolution doesn't not disprove god. You may need to accept some allegory but it's entirely separate. For instance does this code have a designer? There is no need to feel so threatened by science.
edit on 18-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 09:18 AM
a reply to: 5StarOracle

It was tongue in cheek humor. Don't read too much into it. I find it interesting that the focus of your reply rests in me joking about your work and not the lack of understanding in relation to MES. Perhaps when your next project fails you could take a 101 level English course to aid with your comprehension skills. Then again, I should probably just give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that it's a simple error in syntax based on text not properly reflecting inflection and tone. I appreciate both the concern for my finances and offer of a loan but it's not at all necessary. Between the equity in my primary residence and the income from my property in Maine, I'm doing quite well. Otherwise I would t be able to spend this much time on ATS and hanging out with my kids during the summer break from school.

So now that we're done measuring d]€£s, would you care to support your position with something resembling science? Or perhaps you could cite some papers and tell me what the errors are and why the data and conclusions are invalid? Because otherwise, you're just talking out of your posterior with nothing to support any of it. I'm happy to discuss the science and why you feel it is wrong if you're able to do so. But since ad hominem's and personal slanders are part and parcel of your posting history, I don't actually expect you to attempt to, let alone be able to support your position. Again, I am always open to any idea that can be supported with something beyond conjecture and hyperbole. And for what it's worth, I apologize if you thought I was genuinely kicking you or trying to make it personal. But when you belittle and mock someone with nothing to back it up, you can't be terribly shocked if the reply isn't roses and puppy dogs

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 09:27 AM
a reply to: luthier

Absolutely. You are definitely onto something that would make explaining MES to lay people and young students easier. Look at something as basic as lettuce for example. It's related to everything from cabbage and cauliflower to dandelions, sunflowers, lilacs and rubber trees. And while a fair chunk of that was natural selection, the edible produce that graces our grocery stores and farmers market and provides more than 2 billion in market share per year, is the result of artificial selection going back to the Neolithic. The same goes for many grains that we use today in everyday staples like bread. Though they were originally selected for fermentation into alcoholic beverages and there is cooious vidence if this in the Levant and ancient Anatolia. Beer seems to have played an important role at Gobekli Tepe and Catalhayouk so this has been going on well over 10 Ka. The same can be said, as I mentioned in my previous reply in canines, dairy producing animals like goat and cattle and on and on. So while it may not have been written down as eloquently as Mendel write his hypothesis, there was clearly an innate understanding of selective breeding and obtaining a desired result over a long period of time.

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 10:24 AM

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: AMPTAH
but from studying geology, we know this isn't the case. Genetics further supports this.

We don't know anything from studying geology. We have "theories" about the formation of the planet.

If we built a virtual reality, we could just as easily "populate" that world with artifacts and environmental structures that "appear" to have been there for ages.

It's called "illusion."

Yet, it would all come into being at the same time, the instant we pushed the "start" button, to "boot up" our "virtual world."

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 10:34 AM
a reply to: AMPTAH

Your talking about philosophy, and you are somewhat correct.

However, the physical sciences are trying to explain and exploit (in applied science) the laws that govern empercale reality.

Philosophically speaking, we could currently in fact, be in a simulation and "artificial inteligence"

It really just has to do with perspective and depth of understanding and willingness to clearly define the terms in claims.

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 10:45 AM
a reply to: peter vlar

Man a wealth of knowledge. Thanks again for food for thought.

Philosophically it's also really cool to pull back and wonder.

Like is everything natural. Including anything man engineers? Are we programmed to do what we are doing? If a bird can accidentally create mutation under a chance occurrence of pooping seeds near a species that eventually can cross pollenate,is it so different from human intervention?

What is the core of the evolutionary process. Is it something in the law of physics. Is it magnetism and attraction? Decay and transmutation?

I feel like we only know a symptom of the force currently.

It's almost as mystical as God really. I don't know why it's so controversial.

It's like a breath airian eating food I suppose. People against evolution type on computers that science created yet question the reality of its methods.

Science doesn't make any metaphysical claims I am aware of so people should take the fight up with cosmological philosophers. Most of them are also knowledgeable in astro physics or quantum theory but are the appropriate people to argue with. Evolutionary biology can not be disputed. It can be expanded or found to be just a piece of a larger uderstanding. But fighting it is basically saying a tire doesn't roll....

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: AMPTAH

I think you are either willfully or mistakenly misrepresenting what a scientific theory is neighbour. We know a great deal from Geology.

As you seem to be implying that it is all an illusion. Please show the evidence. I personally apply Hitchen's Razor to your argument. Prove me wrong.

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: Noinden

Since nobody bothers with denying ignorance on ATS anymore and choose instead to embrace it, they should change the mottos to Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. I particularly love when people put quotes around Theory because they somehow equate the definition of a Scientific Theory with that of a Hypothesis as if there isn't a massive body of evidence to support any scientific concept that can be labeled as a Theory with a big t.

new topics

top topics

<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in